hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (05/11/85)
___________________________________________________________________________ > From: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) > > In other words, water, when acted upon by an external energy > source, (electricity), with a driving mechanism and a program for > specific work, (refrigeration), is transformed to a state of > higher order. But when left to its own devices reverts back to a > lower order or random state. > > ... Read my previous post ... it has an simple example that will demon- strate the weakness of your argument. > > { a few examples of problematic "designs" } > > > > It would (be) a waste of time and space to give the numerous ex- > > amples of BAD design in our world. > > Just like an arrogant human being to think he knows and under- > stands everything about all of life and nature. If you would like > to discuss each of these in depth just say so. There is much more > to it than your oversimplification of things. Please expound ... (I can't wait to hear this ...) Arrogant? And just where did the original writer say that he knows everything about all of life and nature? Arrogant? Gee, aren't we scientific! Stop BSing us and answer the question/objection. You can't simply write it off with a "you just think you know nature, but you really don't". Get some evidence to support your words. If you are in the position to judge a person's knowledge or the lack thereof, you must have the knowledge to be able to tell the difference. So please tell us ... what do you know about nature that he does not? "More to it"? Please tell us ... don't use rhetoric to play games ... get to the facts. > > Come on! No punctuated equilibriumist will tell you that a rep- > > tile ever gave birth to a bird! Quit misrepresenting things > > which you obviously know little about! > > See "The Wonderful Egg", IPCAR, 1958. Specific recommendation > from the American Association For The Advancement of Science and > the American Council on Education. 1958? When did PE develope? How about the quote? (This is to insure that you are not just parroting the reference notes in some creationist pamphlet; that, in fact, you do know what you are talking about.) > > P.E. is a theory, not a fact like evolution. It is a theory that > > attempts to explain some aspects of evolution that some scien- > > tists feel are not adequately explained by natural selection. > > Disproving P.E. does not affect the fact of evolution. The idea > > is, I think, not so much if there is evidence for P.E., but if it > > explains the facts involved better than other theories of natural > > selection etc. If it does, then perhaps experiment can be > > designed to test the theory, (which will have the effect of gen- > > erating at the moment as far as all this is concerned. It still > > has nothing to do with the fact of evolution, just some of the > > methods. > > So far, P.E. is a theory based on a lack of evidence for gradual- > ism. No ... PE is based upon the seemingly stepwise, rather than linear, trends in the fossil record. > What FACT of Evolution? The general trends in nature ... the fossils ... > > Fool! You people never give up, do you?! Would you care to ex- > > plain how one defines "design"? (I warn you, I will nail you to > > the wall if you even try 'cause I know you will have to strain > > logic beyond its limits to do this.) > > Design - Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary - verb. To conceive > and plan out in the mind. To have as a purpose. To devise as for > a specific function or end. To conceive or execute a plan. noun. > A mental project or scheme in which means to an end are laid > down. A particular purpose held in view by an individual or > group. Deliberate purposive planning! Thanks, but that was not what I trying to get you to tell me. I also can find a dictionary to figure out the standard definitions. I want the application of the word to your claims. The implications are too wild to be acceptable. The very idea that there is some "purpose" makes creationism impossible to deal with in science. Another pro- blem is, of course, the creator. There is no way for science to examine a creator. Therefore, creationism is beyond the bounds of science. > Design can be described as that which has irreducible properties > of organization. For example, what does it take to make an air- > plane fly? Fuel ... a pilot ... > Creative design and organization. You need that to make it. Once you have a working airplane, it will fly. > Take off the wings and see if they will fly! Trivial stuff ... > Take out the engine and see if it will fly. More trivial stuff ... > In other words, an airplane is a collection of non-flying parts! Damn trivial ... > But what makes it fly? Fuel ... a pilot ... > Creative design and organization. Repeating yourself a thousand times won't convince the engineers that they need to put some special ingredient in their planes to make them fly ... Incidentally, you know for a fact that a plane is designed. How could you say that about a virus? > Second, among all the molecules that translate DNA into protein, > there is not one molecule that is alive. Not a single molecule > in your body is alive. No shit, Sherlock. (didn't I say this before somewhere?) None of those molecules fit the definition of life forms. Hence, none of them are alive. > A living cell is a collection of non-living molecules. What > does it take to make a living cell alive? Design and CREATION! Really? And how does that follow? Given the fact that life is a high-level interpretation, and therefore, does not apply to things like individual molecules, the word "alive" is not applicable in the description of molecules, hence my ultra-sarcastic comment on your trivially true remark. Just what are you refering to by "Design and CREATION"? Do you really think that there are little elves adding some secret ingredient called "Design and CREATION"? Reminds me of a similar creationist argument calling upon "know-how". They claimed that even if life is created in the laboratories, it required "know-how" to create it. It tickled me pink to think that the genetic engineers are running around with bags of "know-how" emptying them into their test tubes. > Here is where design and order intersect. In "Scientific Ameri- > can", one issue was made into a book; "Evolution" in 1978. Dick- > erson, after describing the problems in producing the right kinds > of molecules for living systems, says that those droplets that by > "sheer chance" contained the right molecules survived longer. He > continues, "This is not life, but it is getting close to it. The > missing ingredient is AN ORDERLY MECHANISM!" In other words, life > is a property of organization that was produced by an orderly > mechanism or a "deliberate purposive plan" or a design! How in the world do you equate an "orderly mechanism" with "deliberate purposive plan" or "design"? > "Darwin Life and Letters", Vol 2, page 67, "The eye to this day > gives me cold shudders". > > "The Origin of Species", page 160, "To suppose that the eye, with > all of its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to > different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, > and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, > could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely con- > fess, absurd in the highest possible degree." Okay ... I guess I will have to lead your hand through this one. (Not too unusual, really.) Can you say "emotional description"? Can you open the dictionary and find out what this means? Can you say "sub- jective"? Can you say "irrelevant"? Come on! Get out that Webster and figure out the difference between objective and subjective des- cription! > > Dan, are you try to give us a good laugh or what? I guess it > > would take some beating to convince you that you don't even > > understand the surface of the second law of thermodynamics and > > that there is much more than just "a running down universe". The > > design argument is bogus. How do you perceive design? What > > "designed" things are you using to compare? What "non-designed" > > things are you using to compare? If, as creationists claim, God > > designed everything, how do you perceive design when you can't > > tell the difference between a "designed" article and a "non- > > designed" article (because you can't)? I am interested as to > > what you will propose to get out of this bind. > > The difference between a tumbled pebble and an arrowhead, an au- > tomobile and a junkyard, a statue and a mountain, a human being > and a pile of chemicals is that one is a result of time, chance, > and inherent properties of matter, and the other has irreducible > properties of organization that were produced by design and crea- > tion. Your answer is bogus. You do not tell what the differences are because you assume that everyone knows what you are refering to. Unfortunately, what you see must be quite different because none of what you have said is recognized as evidence/proof of what you claimed. Tape recorder time ... Since you did not answer the questions ... instead you resort to raising examples without explaining them ... I will have to repeat my questions: Now, once and for all, answer the questions with straight forward objective answers! 1) What characteristics distinguishes a designed article from a non-designed article? 2) Given that creationists claim that the entire universe is designed, the answers to the first question becomes useless, since there is nothing that can be used as a comparison. "It's all designed; just look around you" is not valid since it presupposes that everything is designed and that the characteristics of this design is found by examining that which is assumed to be designed so that one can distinguish the designed article from the non-designed article though this is useless since everything is assumed to be designed. (Take a heavy breath.) In light of this ... how does one perceive and distinguish design? 3) What is/are the purpose(s) of life? (in the off chance that you can successfully answer #2) You claim to perceive design and purpose. The appropriate followup would be a listing of the design and purpose that you claim to perceive. ___________________________________________________________________________ Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }